Next Gen Exynos laughs at your Tegra 3

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

Nvidia cant touch Samsung. When you have your own fab, you can beat pretty much anyone at time to market. This one is scheduled for later release, Samsung already has a quadcore A9 (Exynos 4412) coming out before this one

And they will also release a SOC based on ARMs big.little technology before the end of 2012

http://androidandme.com/2011/10/new...n-2012-could-extend-battery-life-by-up-to-70/


Nvidia will have some wins the next coming months in the tablet market. But Android tablet sales are not that huge to begin with. The first transformer sold what, 1,5 million?

ICS will increase sales but we are many months away from seeing those apps become mainstream in the android market

 

[MrX8503]

In today's world a Pentium D would destroy a Core 2 Solo. A single core is utterly unacceptable in a modern PC. I do not like my entire machine being locked up busy if I run one application. That is why I like multicore.

Just like how an 8-core Bulldozer destroys a 4-core 2500k? You know nothing about the new Exynos A15 SOC, so I wouldn't make such claims of how Tegra 3 > Exynos Gen 2.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Nvidia cant touch Samsung. When you have your own fab, you can beat pretty much anyone at time to market.

And yet I plan on having a Tegra 3 tablet next month, while no a single next-gen Exynos device has been announced.

Samsung, Qualcomm, and TI found themselves in a completely different race the second Nvidia entered the market. Just impressing phone makers with fancy Powerpoints and paid-for diners doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Medu]

Alright, now take those benefits and explain them in laymen terms with less than 25 words so it could fit in an ad.

Nvidia is going to kill the market this time around. 4>2 is much easier to explain than "in single threaded applications, this CPU will be 40% faster."

Honestly the only chance will be if the actual dual core A15 devices feel twice as fast as quad core Tegra 3s. Hence the need for 2+GHz.

So why were people buying the iPhone 4 when they could of had a dozen other phones over the last 6 months that had dual cores? Did the first dual core phones become instance hits? Most people buy phones for the brand or look and maybe on advice from a tech savvy friend.

But lets face it both chips are going to be more than fastest enough for what people want to do on phones and even tablets. Until the OS's are able to do more the arm's race will soon be pointless.

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

And yet I plan on having a Tegra 3 tablet next month, while no a single next-gen Exynos device has been announced.

Samsung, Qualcomm, and TI found themselves in a completely different race the second Nvidia entered the market. Just impressing phone makers with fancy Powerpoints and paid-for diners doesn't cut it anymore.

Im sure someone made that same exact argument when Tegra 2 was the first dual-core smartphone on the market. Apparently last time people waited 3-4 months to buy a Galaxy S2 over the first dual-core on the market.

Samsung loses nothing by not releasing a tablet now. Because the tablet OS is still not ready for mainstream level sales. You seem to forget that when Transformer Prime is out in stores this christmas, its still going to be running the same laggy Honeycomb at the same old 1200x800 resolution.

Why waste all that R&D to release a tablet that will today sell a maximum 3 million units (and im being very generous here) when you can wait until ICS takes off and more apps are available and release a flagship with a full HD AMOLED+ screen and far superior performance to Tegra 3?

So like i said. Nvidia will have some design wins in the tablet market. But Android tablets dont sell that well to begin with. It wont have the same impact on the smartphone market. HTC, Motorola will use it but they will also use Qualcomm and TI SOCs. At best we are looking at a few million units in sales for Nvidia. The next Galaxy S will sell 10 million units easy

 

[Puddle Jumper]

And yet I plan on having a Tegra 3 tablet next month, while no a single next-gen Exynos device has been announced.

Samsung, Qualcomm, and TI found themselves in a completely different race the second Nvidia entered the market. Just impressing phone makers with fancy Powerpoints and paid-for diners doesn't cut it anymore.

Yeah, now they need to release misleading benchmarks and outright buy off reviewers to keep up.

Samsung doesn't sell their current generation SoCs to other phone vendors so they don't have to fight for any design wins, after all they are the largest Smartphone manufacturer and for the time being they also manufacture all of the SoC's for Apple who is the next largest.

So far Nvidia has put out one utter failure and one average SoC, hardly what I would call shaking up the industry.

 

[Deeko]

I imagine a dual core A15 will trounce a quad core A9. Processors have been capable of handling multiple tasks at once for decades - and there is generally less going on at once on a mobile device than on a desktop, so while adding cores helps, more overall horsepower per core should have a bigger impact.

Think about he background tasks on a phone. Monitoring email, maybe playing a song? These aren't hugely processor intensive tasks. One core can easily handle those with room to spare, so two cores allows the active process a core to itself plus spare resources from the other. I doubt all four cores fire very often on a tablet.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So why were people buying the iPhone 4 when they could of had a dozen other phones over the last 6 months that had dual cores?

Marketing. The same reason 4 inferior cores sounds better than 2 superior ones.

Im sure someone made that same exact argument when Tegra 2 was the first dual-core smartphone on the market. Apparently last time people waited 3-4 months to buy a Galaxy S2 over the first dual-core on the market.

I wouldn't say people waited for the SGS2. I would say no Tegra-based product was overall as nice as the SGS2. If people cared about the SoC in the SGS2 then no one would buy the inferior Qualcomm versions.

Samsung loses nothing by not releasing a tablet now.

X-Mas sales.

Because the tablet OS is still not ready for mainstream level sales.

It is not the OS that matters it is the price. Otherwise how can you explain a dead OS selling the second highest amount of tablets this year (HP)?

You seem to forget that when Transformer Prime is out in stores this christmas, its still going to be running the same laggy Honeycomb at the same old 1200x800 resolution.

Actually I expect HC to be much snappier with the extra GHZ boost and a GPU that is a fit for the resolution (unlike Tegra 2 devices).

Why waste all that R&D to release a tablet that will today sell a maximum 3 million units (and im being very generous here) when you can wait until ICS takes off and more apps are available and release a flagship with a full HD AMOLED+ screen and far superior performance to Tegra 3?

LOL. With that logic, why even make the $800 tablet monster you are talking about? It will never sell more than 3 million units.

If sales is all that matters, the game is who can make the best $200 tablet. That does not require any of the things you are talking about, and can happen today (look at the Fire).

So like i said. Nvidia will have some design wins in the tablet market. But Android tablets dont sell that well to begin with.

So what? If Nvidia can lock down 70% of the ICS Android tablet market, even if that market is small compared to the iPad or eReader tablet market, that is a big deal.

Samsung doesn't sell their current generation SoCs to other phone vendors so they don't have to fight for any design wins, after all they are the largest Smartphone manufacturer and for the time being they also manufacture all of the SoC's for Apple who is the next largest.

We are talking about tablets, not phones. And out of the Samsung tablets, most are Tegra.

So far Nvidia has put out one utter failure and one average SoC, hardly what I would call shaking up the industry.

I would hardly call the SoC that is in most HC devices to be a failure. Maybe HC tablets are a failure, but Nvidia dominated that market.


My point is that at least an Nvidia based tablet has sellable features that people can understand due to the SoC. "Twice as many cores (that means brains dumb consumers!)! Access to Nvidia only games! Available for X Mas 2011!"

No other SoC can use those selling points.

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

I wouldn't say people waited for the SGS2. I would say no Tegra-based product was overall as nice as the SGS2. If people cared about the SoC in the SGS2 then no one would buy the inferior Qualcomm versions.

Uh that makes zero sense. You claim Nvidia is going to take over the market because it has 1 device coming out with a Tegra 3 soc. Yet nobody bought the LG Optimus 2x when it had 3 months alone as the first dual-core phone on the market. So obviously there are more factors involved here than being the first next-gen soc on the market

It is not the OS that matters it is the price. Otherwise how can you explain a dead OS selling the second highest amount of tablets this year (HP)?

The OS matters for the price point Tegra 3 SOCs will be competing in. Bringing up 199 dollar tablets has no relevance to wether Exynos will sell more than Tegra 3 as neither one competes for that price


Actually I expect HC to be much snappier with the extra GHZ boost and a GPU that is a fit for the resolution (unlike Tegra 2 devices).

LOL. With that logic, why even make the $800 tablet monster you are talking about? It will never sell more than 3 million units.

Why would it cost 800? Unlike the Tegra 3 tablet vendors, Samsung makes their own screens. Does their HD AMOLED phones cost more than other premium handsets? Why would this be any different?

If sales is all that matters, the game is who can make the best $200 tablet. That does not require any of the things you are talking about, and can happen today (look at the Fire).

They are hardware manufacturers who want to make a profit on the hardware. Amazon wants to make a profit from their ecosystem. Different business plans. HP is not making a profit on those tablets are they? Until you can make a profit selling at that price, i would not expect anyone but B&N/Amazon to go for that pricepoint

So what? If Nvidia can lock down 70% of the ICS Android tablet market, even if that market is small compared to the iPad or eReader tablet market, that is a big deal.

People are not buying these tablets because they contain Nvidia chips. If Qualcomm offered Asus a better price/performance, Nvidia would be out on its ass for the next tablet. So locking down 70% of a market is silly talk, vendors went for Tegra 3 because it was the first next gen, will they still go for Tegra 3 if there are better performance chips in 6 months? Who knows

OEMs have no loyalties to Nvidia. Motorola used a Tegra 2 for Xoom and then abandoned Nvidia for TI

Tegra 3 is exactly where Tegra 2 was last year. Sampled at the right time and getting some decent design wins before being utterly outclassed by the competition

 

[poofyhairguy]

Uh that makes zero sense. You claim Nvidia is going to take over the market because it has 1 device coming out with a Tegra 3 soc. Yet nobody bought the LG Optimus 2x when it had 3 months alone as the first dual-core phone on the market. So obviously there are more factors involved here than being the first next-gen soc on the market

And yet Samsung announced that some SGS2 might have Tegra 2 inside.

There are bigger factors than being first, but in the HC tablet market being first allowed Tegra 2 to win.

The OS matters for the price point Tegra 3 SOCs will be competing in. Bringing up 199 dollar tablets has no relevance to wether Exynos will sell more than Tegra 3 as neither one competes for that price

By the time this Exynos is buyable, I bet there will be at least $300 Tegra 3 tablets. That is almost a year from now.

Why would it cost 800?

Fine, make it the $500 of the current Galaxy Tab and it is still overpriced for the market compared to a Fire if volume is all that matters.

Until you can make a profit selling at that price, i would not expect anyone but B&N/Amazon to go for that pricepoint

I agree that makers like Samsung need the margin, but I think it is ridiculous to think that next years $500 Android tablets will sell better than this years $500 Android tablets due to a better SoC (or any feature for that matter).

People are not buying these tablets because they contain Nvidia chips. If Qualcomm offered Asus a better price/performance, Nvidia would be out on its ass for the next tablet.

My point was at least the Nvidia SoC has competitive advantages that can be sold to the common consumer. The other SoCs lack that.

Tegra 3 is exactly where Tegra 2 was last year.

Exactly. It is the low-end of this generation. The value leader. Value leaders often are market leaders, like with HC tablets.

 

[iahk]

And yet, all but one of Samsung's tablets use that Tegra SoC.

isn't that because honeycomb didn't support anything other than tegra 2 until they updated honeycomb to 3.2?

 

[manly]

Not in the eyes of regular consumers, no.

4 cores > 2 cores

More is always better as a general consumer rule, and even people who don't understand tech know 4 is more than 2.

Regular consumers don't know what a core is, so 4 > 2 and similar specs matter less than you assert. However, they may well accept the word of the kid working at Best Buy if the kid pumps up quad-core as cutting-edge.

 

[Genx87]

Im sure someone made that same exact argument when Tegra 2 was the first dual-core smartphone on the market. Apparently last time people waited 3-4 months to buy a Galaxy S2 over the first dual-core on the market.

Samsung loses nothing by not releasing a tablet now. Because the tablet OS is still not ready for mainstream level sales. You seem to forget that when Transformer Prime is out in stores this christmas, its still going to be running the same laggy Honeycomb at the same old 1200x800 resolution.

Why waste all that R&D to release a tablet that will today sell a maximum 3 million units (and im being very generous here) when you can wait until ICS takes off and more apps are available and release a flagship with a full HD AMOLED+ screen and far superior performance to Tegra 3?

So like i said. Nvidia will have some design wins in the tablet market. But Android tablets dont sell that well to begin with. It wont have the same impact on the smartphone market. HTC, Motorola will use it but they will also use Qualcomm and TI SOCs. At best we are looking at a few million units in sales for Nvidia. The next Galaxy S will sell 10 million units easy

What, ICS cant be sent out to existing tablet owners? I am pretty sure the Transformer Prime will get ICS once it is available.

 

[s44]

I'm pretty sure the Prime gets ICS by Christmas.

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

And yet Samsung announced that some SGS2 might have Tegra 2 inside.

Yes because they could not produce enough Exynos chips to keep up with demand. The Qualcomm versions were released because Exynos did not have an LTE radio on the SOC so they had to switch for T-mobile etc

Even so, the 10 million sold were Exynos phones

By the time this Exynos is buyable, I bet there will be at least $300 Tegra 3 tablets. That is almost a year from now.

Samsung is not really trying to compete with Tegra 3 using that chip. They have already sampled a 32nm dual-core 4212 with a 400 mhz mali-400mp4 wich should equal or beat Tegra 3 gfx wise and be much much cheaper to produce since its a die shrink and also have a quad-core 4412 with either a SGX 554 or T-604 out by spring.

As for 300 dollar Tegra 3s. Maybe but i wont believe it until someone else other than Nvidias CEO says it

I agree that makers like Samsung need the margin, but I think it is ridiculous to think that next years $500 Android tablets will sell better than this years $500 Android tablets due to a better SoC (or any feature for that matter

I never claimed it would sell better based on the SOC. Rather because ICS will finally be a tablet OS usable to the masses. At the 499 dollar price, you need a good OS because you are directly competing with the Ipad

Tegra 3 will help increase that marketshare but highly unlikely that Nvidia will control the majority of the Android tablet market. Lenovo has a Tegra 3 tablet but is also releasing 2 tablets using Qualcomm, Motorola is using TI, HTC might use Tegra but will most likely also use Qualcomm

Krait, OMAP 4470 will be out within the next few months and will most likely outperform or equal Tegra 3. So how exactly can Nvidia dominate the market?

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

And ironically a rumour shows up that Nvidia might be powering the big Kindle Fire

http://androidandme.com/2011/11/news/next-generation-kindle-fire-to-pack-nvidia-processor/

lol

 

[lothar]

I'd take a 1.5Ghz quad core A9 based SOC over a dual core 2Ghz A15 setup any day of the week for exactly the same reason I'd take a 1Ghz dual core over a 1.5Ghz single core.

Would you take a 6-core Phenom II over a 2500k quad core Sandy Bridge?
Would you take an 8-core Bulldozer over a 2500k quad core Sandy Bridge?

 

[lothar]

I imagine a dual core A15 will trounce a quad core A9. Processors have been capable of handling multiple tasks at once for decades - and there is generally less going on at once on a mobile device than on a desktop, so while adding cores helps, more overall horsepower per core should have a bigger impact.

Think about he background tasks on a phone. Monitoring email, maybe playing a song? These aren't hugely processor intensive tasks. One core can easily handle those with room to spare, so two cores allows the active process a core to itself plus spare resources from the other. I doubt all four cores fire very often on a tablet.

This.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Regular consumers don't know what a core is, so 4 > 2 and similar specs matter less than you assert. However, they may well accept the word of the kid working at Best Buy if the kid pumps up quad-core as cutting-edge.

I would argue that years of marketing by Intel and AMD about multicore technology means that the average consumer understands it more than you give them credit for.

At the very basic level, consumers know that more is usually better with tech. When I was selling computers as a job it was right when dual-cores hit, and I couldn't anyone to buy a faster core Core Solo over that Core Duo. They didn't know why exactly, but they knew Duo beat Solo. Just like 4 is double of 2.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Samsung is not really trying to compete with Tegra 3 using that chip. They have already sampled a 32nm dual-core 4212 with a 400 mhz mali-400mp4 wich should equal or beat Tegra 3 gfx wise and be much much cheaper to produce since its a die shrink and also have a quad-core 4412 with either a SGX 554 or T-604 out by spring.

Will that be for tablets?

Krait, OMAP 4470 will be out within the next few months and will most likely outperform or equal Tegra 3. So how exactly can Nvidia dominate the market?

By being first, by being the cheapest option, and by having the most easily marketable features (4>2). It will be very hard to explain to a consumer why Krait is faster. A kindergarden student knows 4 is double 2.

And ironically a rumour shows up that Nvidia might be powering the big Kindle Fire

http://androidandme.com/2011/11/news/next-generation-kindle-fire-to-pack-nvidia-processor/

There is that $300 Tegra 3 I was talking about....

 

[s44]

I'll believe in a Qualcomm chip "dominating" anything when I see it.

 

[manly]

I would argue that years of marketing by Intel and AMD about multicore technology means that the average consumer understands it more than you give them credit for.

At the very basic level, consumers know that more is usually better with tech. When I was selling computers as a job it was right when dual-cores hit, and I couldn't anyone to buy a faster core Core Solo over that Core Duo. They didn't know why exactly, but they knew Duo beat Solo. Just like 4 is double of 2.

Do many consumers even know who AMD is yet? I don't think I'm underrating consumers much at all, we have to exclude the technorati and tech-savvy from the mainstream.

If tech specs were highly important in the typical buying decision, the ancient iPhone 3GS shouldn't have been the #2 selling handset in the U.S. in Q3. Another example would be the Kindle Fire and NOOK Tablet might be closer in sales this quarter since the Nook has extra RAM and storage. Early estimates are that KF will outsell NT about 3 to 1, which I feel demonstrates consumers look at many different factors besides tech specs. In the KF's case, I figure strong brand recognition and price trump the areas where NT is better.

(Some vocal members here would even argue the #1 selling iPhone 4 was also stale in Q3.)

"More is better" can also be misleading some consumers if you look back at the P4 era where MHz was king. Deeko argued precisely that in stating a dual-core A15 will outwork a quad-core A9.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

My point is that at least an Nvidia based tablet has sellable features that people can understand due to the SoC. "Twice as many cores (that means brains dumb consumers!)! Access to Nvidia only games! Available for X Mas 2011!"

No other SoC can use those selling points.

Tegra was the failure, the only phone it was used in was the Kin which says it all. Tegra 2 was just average, if I remember correctly it was only 30-40% faster than Hummingbird when it came to gaming and was actually worse for media playback. I'll reserve my judgement on Tegra 3 until it launches as Nvidia has always been known to over hype their products.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Not in the eyes of regular consumers, no.

4 cores > 2 cores

More is always better as a general consumer rule, and even people who don't understand tech know 4 is more than 2.

I don't think consumers read that far.

As far as I can see, Samsung only has to write the following:
- 2x faster than our last tablet
- 5x faster graphics
- 15 hours of battery life

And that'll be enough to win consumers over. That's pretty much the same thing Apple is doing. An the thing is, when consumers see that those claims are accurate, Tegra 3 would look pretty poor with is lower performance (possible) and lower battery life (definitely).

 

[ITHURTSWHENIP]

I'll believe in a Qualcomm chip "dominating" anything when I see it.

Thats not an inaccurate view to be honest. But whereas Nvidia make up benchmarks and straight up lies about its performances, Qualcomm if anything understates theirs. But realistically Snapdragons have been disappointing i agree

But the fact is that Krait is the first SOC at 28nm while Nvidia is still at 40nm, its custom design will be faster than a regular A9 and the Adreno GPU wont be bottlenecked by single channel memory this time as noted by Anands preview